If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Ed and Shadow debate morality.

Originally Posted by The Editor

Of course there is value to life. Your genes value your life. They also value the lives of those closest to you genetically. The further removed you are genetically from another person the less interest you're genes have in their survival. And then of course there is the business of short term sacrifice for long term gain. Killing another member of the tribe for your own benefit would backfire later because you've lost a valuable hunting partner. And then we invented morality and the concept of right and wrong to enforce such things. Morality is subjective and dominated by social doctrine. There is no objective basis for morality.

Okay, so if morality is subjective, can I stomp your foot into oblivion?

"I can't explain just how it feels,
the thoughts of my premature burial.
Inside this oblong box I lie,
with the hope I'll be buried alive."

There is an interesting arguement to the value of life. See back in the day before labor unions if you lost you are they said screw you we have thousands more to replace you and you are not fitting to the "survial of the fittest." During that period of time America was the strongest country on earth.

there is an objective morality throughout human history, mainly that one should not cause undue harm to people associated with their "group". what defines "group" is what has been subjective about morality throughout history.

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

Shadow you're being an idiot. Just because you percieve it to a good thing, it's all based on the majority. How they percieve it (wrong or right) will effect you.

Let's say someone kicked you and you said "Fucking Asshole!"
If that was shown on Comedy central, people would possibly find that amusing.
But if you were at church... it wouldn't be as much amusing.
It's all subjective.

That's not objective, God. Early humans worked out that the group shouldn't have infighting as this had negative consequences to every member in the group. They then made that social doctrine and now we call it morality.

Could my point really be that hard to find? I'm trying to make the point that if there's no moral standard then who's to say what's right or wrong. And in that case who's to say hitler was bad, because in his eyes and the eyes of his followers they were right.

"I can't explain just how it feels,
the thoughts of my premature burial.
Inside this oblong box I lie,
with the hope I'll be buried alive."

Could my point really be that hard to find? I'm trying to make the point that if there's no moral standard then who's to say what's right or wrong. And in that case who's to say hitler was bad, because in his eyes and the eyes of his followers they were right.

"trying to make the point that if there's no moral standard then who's to say what's right or wrong."

We're saying that morals are subjective, a group of people all agree upon what is right or wrong. That is what make morals subjective.

Erhem:

(Time: 1700's) Let's say a guy found his wife cheating. Should he...
A) Forgive the man she cheated with
B) Kill the man she cheated with

If you chose A I can guess your ancestry came from Potato farmers.
If you chose B I can guess your ancestry came from Cattle ranchers of some sort.

Why does this matter? Because this will determine what you do. If someone has stolen some of your potato's... what does it matter? You have a crop. No one's going to steal an entire crop of potato's.
But if you had a cow stolen, which happens to be your lively hood, then it can mean life or death for you and your family.

What these two families view as right or wrong is totally subjective. Of course they both know that killing another person is wrong, but it comes too, which action will allow certain other actions to bypass.
Or rather... this changes the subject to what is morally permissible?